Respondent owned and operated two food warehousing facilities. One is used for food manufacturing and refrigerated warehouse and storage. The other is used for refrigerated storage. On January 26, 20 17, EPA conducted a compliance inspection at the food manufacturing facility, as well as a records review of the risk management plan (submitted to EPA initially on October 14, 2009, with a resubmission on May 29, 2014 ), to determine whether the facility was in compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. An RMP compliance inspection was not conducted at the other facility. However, on April 4, 2017, EPA issued a request for information to Respondent concerning the facility, in order to ascertain information regarding the refrigeration system at the facility to determine whether the Facility was in compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO THE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 112(r)(7) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Based on available information obtained in connection with EPA ‘s January 26, 2017 RMP compliance inspection, as well as Respondent’s May 12, 2017 response to EPA’s April 4 , 2017 request for information, EPA has determined that Respondent failed to comply with 40 C.F .R. Part 68, which requires Respondent to fully implement a Program 3 Risk Management Program for the Facilities.
Respondent failed to comply with the following requirement s of Subparts D and G of 40 C.F.R. Part 68:
Process Safety Information
40 C.F.R. § 68.65 requires the owner or operator to compile process safety information before conducting any process hazardous analysis required by the rule , to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by the processes involving regulated substances. 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii) require the owner or operator to compile information regarding the maximum intended inventory. At the inspection , Respondent was unable to provide EPA with information regarding the maximum intended inventory of anhydrous ammonia
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv) require the owner or operator to compile information related to the relief system design and the basis for the design. At the inspection, Respondent was unable to provide EPA with documentation of a relief system design
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d) require the owner or operator to compile information related to the equipment in the process; 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:
a. IIAR 2 (2014) 15.5.1.4 states, “Discharge piping shall be permitted to terminate not less than 7.25 feet (2.2 m) above platform surfaces, such as upper condenser catwalks, that are occupied solely during service and inspection.” During the inspection, EPA inspectors observed that the Facility ‘s relief vent stack, located between two upper condenser platforms, terminated approximately 2 feet above those platforms.
b. ANSI/ASHRAE 15 (2013) Section 8.11.2.1 states: “Each refrigerating machinery room shall contain a detector , located in an area where refrigerant from a leak will concentrate, that actuates an alarm and mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section 8.11.4 at a value not greater than the corresponding TLV-TWA (or toxicity measure consistent therewith). The alarm shall annunciate visual and audible alarms inside the refrigerating machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room.” During the inspection, EPA inspectors observed that Respondent failed to have audible/visual alarms outside each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room and inside the room itself. In addition, based upon Respondent’s May 12, 2017 response to EPA ‘s request for information concerning the Facility, audible/visual alarms have not been installed at each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room, or inside the room itself.
Process Hazard Analysis
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) requires the owner or operator to establish a system to promptly address the findings and recommendations of a process hazard analysis (PHA), assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that resolution is documented, document what actions are to be taken , and develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed.
During the inspection, Respondent was unable to produce for EPA inspectors documentation regard ing implementation of actions recommended by PHAs undertaken at the Fresh Foods Facility , and EPA inspectors determined that Respondent had no system in place to document that PHA recommendations are addressed.
Training
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c) require that the owner or operator prepare a training record for each employee involved in operating a process which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training , and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
During the inspection, Respondent provided to EPA inspectors a procedure for documentation of employee training for the facility, however, EPA inspectors observed that Respondent failed to complete documentation of the initial training for the refrigeration system operator.
Mechanical Integrity
40 C.F.R. § 68.73 requires that Respondent establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment, conduct inspections and tests on process equipment and document the outcome of the inspections and tests, and correct deficiencies in equipment in a safe and timely manner.
During the inspection, EPA inspectors identified several mechanical integrity deficiencies, including excessive ice buildup and visible vapor barrier damage on insulated ammonia piping associated with the low temperature recirculator, ice buildup and visible vapor barrier failure damage on the low temperature recirculator vessel, and excessive ice buildup on valve stems on the refrigeration system causing apparent inoperability of the valves.
According to Respondent ‘s documentation of inspections and tests, these issues were not identified by Facility inspections despite checks for these types of issues being written into the mechanical integrity plan. Additionally, EPA determined that action items listed in the 2013 System Mechanical Integrity Evaluation for the facility (identified equipment deficiencies) had not been completed as of the EPA inspection date.
Compliance Audit
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) require the owner or operator to determine and document an appropriate response to each finding of the compliance audit required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(b).
During the inspection, EPA inspectors determined that Respondent failed to document the completion of action items from previous compliance audits. Several action items required to be documented as completed were carried over from one compliance audit to the next. Risk Management Plan 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(5) requires that Respondent revise and update the risk management plan within six (6) months of a change that requires a revised PHA or hazard review.
At the inspection, EPA inspectors determined that Respondent failed to update the risk management plan related to a change requiring a revised PHA: an increase in anhydrous ammonia with the addition of system component in 2015. A new PHA was conducted on April 24, 2015 when a new evaporative condenser was installed in the system and an additional 1,500 pounds of ammonia was added to the system. However, at the time of the inspection, the risk management plan had not been updated since 2014.
On January 8, 2018, Respondent submitted a report to EPA which summarizes a series of corrective actions voluntarily undertaken by Respondent at each of the Facilities, in connection with the CAA Section 112(r)(7) violations found during EPA’s January 26, 2017 RMP compliance inspection , as well as the corrective action undertaken to address the Respondent’s failure to design its ammonia refrigeration room
The Facilities are each a Program 3 Facility under the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions , in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d).
Respondent consents to the assessment of a civil penalty for the violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U .S.C. § 7412(r)(7), in the amount of SEVENTY THOUSAND , SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($70,648).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO